It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whistleblower Exposes FAA Conspiracy -Commission Covers It Up!

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Again, this is not a smoking gun, but it's another piece of the puzzle showing the conspiracy to cover-up what happened on 9/11. Based on how instrumental the FAA was in keeping NORAD from preventing the 9/11 attacks, this may even expose the complicity of the FAA in allowing the attacks to happen.

This post will show what FAA security employee Bogdan Dzakovic told the 9/11 Commission about how the FAA intentionally created a system that was "designed for failure," and how the FAA "very conscientiously and deliberately orchestrated a dangerous façade of security."

In spite of Dzakovic's testimony, the 9/11 Commission completely ignored Bogdan's testimony in their final report.

If you're interested in understanding the dirty secrets of why 9/11 happened, then take time to read this.


1. Red Team Breaches Security 90% of the Time, FAA Orders Them Not to Write Up Their Findings

Bogdan Dzakovic's job with the FAA was to try to breach FAA security. His unit was called Red Team. In effect, the Red Team was supposed to test the FAA security just as if a terrorist was trying to get through security. Red Team was able to breach security 90% of the time, but the FAA's response was to order the Red Team *not* to write up their findings.






2. FAA Deliberately Ignores Red Team Warnings; System is "Designed" to Fail

Dzakovic tells the 9/11 Commissioners that the highest members of the FAA intentionally ignore the Red Team's warnings about the total lack of security at the airports. Dzakovic goes on to tell the 9/11 Commission that the system was designed for failure to stop terrorists.






3. Dzakovic tells the 9/11 Commissioners that the FAA Deliberately Deceived the Public About What Happened on 9/11

Apparently there were reports that the hijackers had a gun and explosives. Somewhere along the way the FAA just simply decided to change this report for no apparent reason other than to intentionally deceive the public.






4. Highest Ranking Members of FAA Knew of Total Lack of Security and Did Nothing






5. Red Team Gets 31 Out of 31 Simluated Bombs Through Security, FAA Orders Red Team to Stop Testing

These are the major points that Dzakovic reported in his successful "Whistleblower" action against the FAA. The pattern is clear. The more the Red Team was successful in defeating FAA airport security, the more the FAA tried to stop the Red Team from doing their job.






6. The "Where's the Evidence?" Strategy Is Used To Stop All Investigations of Issues Raised by the Red Team

Amazingly, the Inspector Generals office pulled almost the exact same strategy with Dzakovic that the DoD pulled with the Able Danger unit. In both cases the evidence in question was either seized or destroyed. After the evidence was eliminated, the government then said, "So where's your *proof* of all these allegations?" Obviously, the proof was already destroyed.






7. Patriot Act Calls for Imprisonment for Whistleblowers

Just to make sure people like Dzakovic aren't able to cause trouble in the future, the Congress passed the Patriot Act which allows government employees to be fired and imprisoned for disclosing unclassified evidence. In effect, this new law eliminated the need for the government to worry about "whistleblowers" spilling the beans. And people wonder why nobody involved in a conspiracy might come forward??






So after all these revaltions about the FAA complicity in allowing the the 9/11 attacks to happen, here's what the 9/11 Commissioners had to say on the subject:





That's right. Nothing.

The 9/11 Commissioners totally and completely discarded Dzakovic's testimony as if he never even testified. Likewise, the 9/11 Commissioners decided unanimously that the information that the Able Danger officers tried to provide about Mohammad Atta was irrelevant.

In my opinion, there is more than enough evidence re the 9/11 Commissioners to prove there was at minimum a conspiracy to hide the FAA's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

I would suggest that if you're truly interested in exposing the truth about 9/11, it would be helpful to focus on information like what Dzakovic testified to and why the 9/11 Commission ignored it than to keep focusing on unwinnable arguments like CD's in the WTC, etc.

Source:
www.9-11commission.gov...




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Thanks for all this. too much to read now, but possibly useful in my FAA investigation, which is still rolling slowly a., thanks to your inpetus. Man, how DO you get so much research done? Sure NICK isn't an acronym for a team of folks?

My gut instinct here: if security is that bad, and terrorists are determined to strike again, why hasn't it happened again? By this study, 90% of efforts should succeed. Since we've had zero air attacks since then, that means essentially it hasn't been tried. At all. Or maybe once.

Methinks this is more ineptitude talk to create a big enough hole of believable security "lapses' to:
1) explain or even over-explain how 9/11 got thru (you could drive a Mack truck thru our defenses, etc...)
2) Necessitate reforms for tighter security. I guess Nazi Germany too was rife with talkof 'our weakened defenses" always needing tightened. The 9/11 Comm. is all about this "defenseless" and "embarassingly weak" type stuff, and so I suspect their "coverup' was really meant to bolster the impression by making it look THAT embarrassing and that alarming.

Or maybe they really just are incredibly inept but their mistakes pay off becuase of incredible luck in terms of timing.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:21 AM
link   
another great story, nice find



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Man, how DO you get so much research done? Sure NICK isn't an acronym for a team of folks?

I'm guessing he/they don't sleep!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   


My gut instinct here: if security is that bad, and terrorists are determined to strike again, why hasn't it happened again?


because security was that bad, not is. although i would be the first to admit that the majority of stopgap procedures put into effect immediately after 9/11 were more to appease the public than to actually stop another attack.

as far as a conspiracy, there might actually be one here....but it's not that the faa was inentionally trying to leave a big gaping hole for the 9/11 terrorists. it's simply that the faa is cheap (and lets clarify here: when i say "faa", i mean faa management). for many years now the faa has been moving to a "run like a corporate business" mentality, which means that the bottom line is way more important than safety......which is why they have reduced both staffing levels and controllers salaries at every major facility in the country.

i completely agree that the faa is partially at fault for 9/11, but not because they were part of some huge conspiracy to allow the hijackers in, but simply because they were too cheap to pay for the appropriate security measures and too close-minded to re-evaluate their 30 year old procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. IMHO, the confusion of 9/11 was directly related to the fact that controllers, both civilian and military, were trained to appease the hijackers in every way possible for the sake of the passengers.....we had never been trained to deal with a scenario in which terrorists used the planes as flying bombs kamikazee style.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Thanks for all this. too much to read now, but possibly useful in my FAA investigation, which is still rolling slowly a., thanks to your inpetus. Man, how DO you get so much research done? Sure NICK isn't an acronym for a team of folks?


LOL... seriously, I don't think I do any more research than the average joe surfing the web. What helps is that I've gotten into the habit of documenting anything interesing that I find. I use MS One-Note to screen capture sections of stories, then I use IrfanView to copy the images into. I then crop and save as .jpgs, and upload to photobucket. This sounds like it takes a lot of time, but it takes about 1 minute by the time I read something to the time it's in photobucket.



Methinks this is more ineptitude talk to create a big enough hole of believable security "lapses' to:
1) explain or even over-explain how 9/11 got thru (you could drive a Mack truck thru our defenses, etc...)
2) Necessitate reforms for tighter security. I guess Nazi Germany too was rife with talkof 'our weakened defenses" always needing tightened. The 9/11 Comm. is all about this "defenseless" and "embarassingly weak" type stuff, and so I suspect their "coverup' was really meant to bolster the impression by making it look THAT embarrassing and that alarming.


I think you're right, but that they had to walk a very fine line. They had to portray a scenario of reasonable incomptetence, if that makes any sense.

However, I think from reading Dzakovic's testimony it was much more than that. His job was to identify security holes, and when he found them, he was told to shut up and not tell anybody. This pretty much parallels what happened to Able Danger, except it was the DoD instead of the FAA that acted as if they didn't want the evidence to become public.

I have a hard time believing that the highest ranking people in different agencies, both of which were instrumental in 9/11 happening, would be so incompetent in such a similar way.

I think that maybe somehow things were set in place that allowed for 9/11 to happen, and the the leaders of the agencies, FAA, DoD, FBI, etc., while not complicit in the plot, knew that they were not supposed to rock the boat.



Or maybe they really just are incredibly inept but their mistakes pay off becuase of incredible luck in terms of timing.



Maybe they are incredibly inept by design. As odd as this sounds, I keep thinking back to the freemason pyrmid metaphor, with each level of the pyramid representing a hierarchy of the organization. The people at the bottom just follow orders and do their job. The people in the middle know more than the people at the bottom, but still not as much as the people at the top. This is the model that the military and the government were designed to emulate.

If the people at the very top want to make sure their plans are carried out, they have people beneath them that are just competent enough to carry out the plans, but not smart enough or motivated enough to understand the big picture.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
because security was that bad, not is. although i would be the first to admit that the majority of stopgap procedures put into effect immediately after 9/11 were more to appease the public than to actually stop another attack.


What's interesting about your observation is that obviously the highest ranking people in the FAA *knew* how bad the security was. Dzakovic claims it was by design. What's even more interesting is that the 9/11 Commission totally omitted any reference to Dzakovic's testimony from their final report.



as far as a conspiracy, there might actually be one here....but it's not that the faa was inentionally trying to leave a big gaping hole for the 9/11 terrorists.


When somebody like Dzakovic reports to the FAA that he was able to sneak 31 out of 31 simulated bombs on planes without being detected by security, who makes the decision to order him to stop testing and to NOT document his findings?



it's simply that the faa is cheap (and lets clarify here: when i say "faa", i mean faa management). for many years now the faa has been moving to a "run like a corporate business" mentality, which means that the bottom line is way more important than safety......which is why they have reduced both staffing levels and controllers salaries at every major facility in the country.


This seems out of sync with typical government agencies that do everything they can to spend money so they can get more money in the next budget.


i completely agree that the faa is partially at fault for 9/11, but not because they were part of some huge conspiracy to allow the hijackers in, but simply because they were too cheap to pay for the appropriate security measures and too close-minded to re-evaluate their 30 year old procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft.


I'm just curious... was it ever part of any FAA procedure to deal with hijackers by evacuating control towers at airports that were tracking the hijacked planes?


IMHO, the confusion of 9/11 was directly related to the fact that controllers, both civilian and military, were trained to appease the hijackers in every way possible for the sake of the passengers.....we had never been trained to deal with a scenario in which terrorists used the planes as flying bombs kamikazee style.



I don't recall seeing any attempt by the controllers to appease the hijackers on 9/11, so I'm not sure how you think this mentaility of appeasement could have led to the confusion on 9/11.

To be blunt, the FAA wrongly told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was .ing south towards Washington. This had nothing to do with appeasing the hijackers.

Further, the FAA somehow managed to lose Flight 77 from radar altogether for 30 minutes, and failed to even notify NORAD that Flight 77 was a hijacking until just minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon.

NORAD couldn't get a location on Flight 93 because the Pittsburgh controllers were ordered out of the ATC. How does that reflect confusion based on appeasing the hijackers?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet
another great story, nice find


Thanks!!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
before we get into this discussion, let me first say that i am in no way defending the actions (or as the case may be, inactions) of the faa. i am simply correcting what i believe to be mistaken assumptions based on this man's testimony....and i am doing it from the unique perspective of being an faa controller.


Originally posted by nick7261

What's interesting about your observation is that obviously the highest ranking people in the FAA *knew* how bad the security was. Dzakovic claims it was by design.


no, he claims that they simply didnt care. big difference. they didnt care because it would cost too much money to fix. Dzakovic claims that the faa is complicite because they refused to spend the money to fix the problem…..not because they were part of any scheme to allow the 9/11 terrorists to complete their work.



What's even more interesting is that the 9/11 Commission totally omitted any reference to Dzakovic's testimony from their final report.


Along with a lot of other testimony from a lot of other people. It is a federal commission. They are not designed to actually fix problems, but rather make the public feel that something is being done.



When somebody like Dzakovic reports to the FAA that he was able to sneak 31 out of 31 simulated bombs on planes without being detected by security, who makes the decision to order him to stop testing and to NOT document his findings?


Whoever is in charge of the financing. IOW, whoever would be responsible for dolling out the money needed to fix the problem.



This seems out of sync with typical government agencies that do everything they can to spend money so they can get more money in the next budget.


And this is where you show that you have not done your homework. The faa has recently completely restructured itself as an organization into a business type management structure. There is even a ceo and cfo. This is because the bush administration has made it very clear that if the faa does not reduce costs, it will be completely contracted out….and it is not an empty threat. Go and research how many other federal agencies have been contracted out since bush took office. Unfortunately, the restructuring only attempts to reduce costs, not increase safety.



I'm just curious... was it ever part of any FAA procedure to deal with hijackers by evacuating control towers at airports that were tracking the hijacked planes?


You are making the same mistake that every other 9/11 CTer makes. You assume that the faa in infallible and had a strong grasp over the situation at all levels. This is not the case. Some parts of management knew the first two planes were hijacks, and ordered the evacuations. Other parts in other regions had no idea and were still looking for a missing airliner presumed to have crashed. You have to look at the big picture. It was mass confusion.



I don't recall seeing any attempt by the controllers to appease the hijackers on 9/11, so I'm not sure how you think this mentaility of appeasement could have led to the confusion on 9/11.


Because the hijackers were not in communication with atc. Hell, we didn’t even know the aircraft were hijacked, because none of the normal procedures were used by the crews. The only reason we had an idea that it might be a hijacking was that atta accidentally transmitted over the radio when he meant to talk to the passengers.
Pre-911 procedure and post-9/11 procedure are two completely different things. Read through my posts onthis thread for a further explanation.



To be blunt, the FAA wrongly told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was .ing south towards Washington. This had nothing to do with appeasing the hijackers.


No, but it had everything to do with confusion. Again, read my posts on that other thread.



Further, the FAA somehow managed to lose Flight 77 from radar altogether for 30 minutes, and failed to even notify NORAD that Flight 77 was a hijacking until just minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon.


Because they had no idea that it was hijacked. Have you even read the 9/11 report? You are talking about different regions having different information, and not sharing that information with each other.

Read the information presented in the other thread, then come back and ask your questions.


[edit on 3/1/07 by snafu7700]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
hmmm... great post,very intriguing info. why would the faa cover up such security breaches in the first place?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ka47
hmmm... great post,very intriguing info. why would the faa cover up such security breaches in the first place?


Thanks!


Keep in mind that the FAA's role in 9/11 is suspect on many levels:

1) The apparent total lack of competence in screening passengers,

2) The total lack of concern when this incompetence was reported to top FAA officials,

3) The misinformation the FAA provided NORAD and NEADS on 9/11 which caused the fighters to be scrambled away from the hijacked planes, and

4) The FAA ordered the air traffic control towers that could have tracked Flight 93 be evacuated at 9:49 am, just 14 minutes before Flight 93 crashed.

When will all the incriminating information re the FAA reach a tipping point where people will realize that something more than incompetence is at play here?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Maybe not a smoking gun, but the barrel sure feels hot.
Nice find!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
WOAH! Great find Nick! This seems like pretty irrefutable evidence for the FAA. Too bad something like this will never get mainstream media coverage..or will it?

Exposing something like this to the public would undoubtedly cause a BIG chain reaction. Head will start rolling if this happens.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ka47
hmmm... great post,very intriguing info. why would the faa cover up such security breaches in the first place?


because they would have to shell out the money to fix them. it's all about the almighty dollar.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ka47
hmmm... great post,very intriguing info. why would the faa cover up such security breaches in the first place?


because they would have to shell out the money to fix them. it's all about the almighty dollar.


Agreed, its about saving money then about fixing security. Why fix something if terrorists don't know our security still sucks. Keep it secret.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

What's interesting about your observation is that obviously the highest ranking people in the FAA *knew* how bad the security was. Dzakovic claims it was by design.

no, he claims that they simply didnt care. big difference.


With all due respect, Dzakovic specifically said the system was "designed" for failure. And yes it is a big difference and an important point. Here's the quote again. Note that he also says the FAA "conciously and deliberately orchestrated a dangerous facade of security, ignoring the laws cited above."

Sorry, but that's a very specific indictment of the FAA's deliberate and conscious effort to ignore security. At no place in Dzakovic's statement to the FAA does he say the FAA simply didn't care. I believe that is only you putting your own spin on it.







they didnt care because it would cost too much money to fix. Dzakovic claims that the faa is complicite because they refused to spend the money to fix the problem…..not because they were part of any scheme to allow the 9/11 terrorists to complete their work.



This again is putting your own spin on Dzakovik's statement. Nowhere does he say anything about the problem being because of budget concerns. Here is what he did say:

"The more serious the problems in aviation security we identified, the more FAA tied our hands behind our backs and restricted our activities. All we were doing in their eyes was identifying and "causing" problems that they preferred not to know about."


Did you read that? He specifically says the FAA preferred not to know about the security problems, and that the FAA restricted the Red Team's activities. He says nothing about their motive for doing this in his statement to the 9/11 Commission.




What's even more interesting is that the 9/11 Commission totally omitted any reference to Dzakovic's testimony from their final report.

Along with a lot of other testimony from a lot of other people. It is a federal commission. They are not designed to actually fix problems, but rather make the public feel that something is being done.



Sorry, but this is a complete and total cop out. The 9/11 Commission's entire purpose was to determine what went wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen. The FAA is at the heart of everything that went wrong. To omit any reference to Dzakovic's statements in their final report is borderline criminal.



This is because the bush administration has made it very clear that if the faa does not reduce costs, it will be completely contracted out….and it is not an empty threat. Go and research how many other federal agencies have been contracted out since bush took office. Unfortunately, the restructuring only attempts to reduce costs, not increase safety.



Interesting... so when did Bush first threaten to eliminate the FAA and contract out for the same services (or lack thereof) that the FAA provides?




You are making the same mistake that every other 9/11 CTer makes. You assume that the faa in infallible and had a strong grasp over the situation at all levels. This is not the case. Some parts of management knew the first two planes were hijacks, and ordered the evacuations. Other parts in other regions had no idea and were still looking for a missing airliner presumed to have crashed. You have to look at the big picture. It was mass confusion.




Um.... not exactly. Actually, not even close.

I am not making a mistake at all. I'm just asking a question. Is it standard procedure for the FAA to evacuate the only control towers that could track a hijacked plane?

The evacuations had ZERO to do with some parts of management knowing the 1st two planes were hijackings. These planes were in NY. The FAA new Flight 93 was also a hijacking, and already knew that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon when they ordered that ATC tower in Pittsburgh and Johnstown evacuated.




The only reason we had an idea that it might be a hijacking was that atta accidentally transmitted over the radio when he meant to talk to the passengers.


Yes, and this happened at about 8:20 am? And then Flight 175 stopped responding. And then Flight 77. And then Flight 93 DID communicate to ATC in Cleveland about having a bomb on board. So to say that the FAA didn't know these were hijackings is incorrect.





To be blunt, the FAA wrongly told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was .ing south towards Washington. This had nothing to do with appeasing the hijackers.

No, but it had everything to do with confusion. Again, read my posts on that other thread.


I'm sorry, but the idea that the phantom Flight 11 story was caused only by confusion seems preposterous. The controllers have one job to do -track planes. They already knew Flight 11 was hijacked and hit WTC1. In fact, they already knew Flight 175 hit WTC2. To suddenly come up with an unverified report to NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was .ing towards Washington because there was a report that Flight 77 was missing over Kentucky seems ludicrous.

Are the controllers really THAT incompetent??



Because they had no idea that it was hijacked. Have you even read the 9/11 report? You are talking about different regions having different information, and not sharing that information with each other.


I read the 9/11 report several times. It's here on my desk. Yes, you can repeat the Commission's findings but that doesn't make them true. Two flights already hit WTC1 and WTC2, and the excuse is that they didn't know Flight 77 *might* be a hijacking when it went off course?

The nations freakin' capital was left unprotected because the FAA was "confused" by 4 hijackings? This is what our tax money pays for?? What would happen if there were a REAL air attack??


So the story is that the FAA *guessed* Flight 11 didn't hit WTC1 and went to the trouble of calling NEADS and telling them this false information, but they were hesitant to call 77 a hijacking when it disappeared from radar?

Are the controllers really that poorly trained, and/or that incompetent? Didn't they realize what was at stake after two planes hit WTC1 and WTC2? Didn't they think it might be important to report Flight 77 to NEADS? Or to verify the "phantom" Flight 11?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
In all fairness, Nick, it does make sense;
they "chose" to ignore warnings 'cause they're cheap.
the put on a "facade of security" - becuase people simply don't fly if they don't feel secure
it was "dangerous," i guess, becuase people felt safer than they were and some of them died.

Of course most still would probably have flown if they realized security was that bad. Think. If FAA HADN'T covered it up, if it'd been front page news '905 of red teams get through" they'd think what I thought. "Wow, that's bad, but 90% of attacks should've gotten thru - up to now in 2001 none have happened - whatever the security breaches, for some reason no one's tried anything... I feel safe enough." and they'd still fly on 9/11 and die.

Why talk of danger and design? Make people alarmed, demand reforms, get like Israel with its air security. Why? War with the Middle East - and its blowback - was just over the horizon. Hijacking might START happening. It already was of course - as 9/11 is supposed to testify - IMO this guy Dzakovic's testimony, whatever its intent, serves as part of this set-up, and only maybe as a seam onto the attack.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

With all due respect, Dzakovic specifically said the system was "designed" for failure. And yes it is a big difference and an important point. Here's the quote again. Note that he also says the FAA "conciously and deliberately orchestrated a dangerous facade of security, ignoring the laws cited above."

Sorry, but that's a very specific indictment of the FAA's deliberate and conscious effort to ignore security. At no place in Dzakovic's statement to the FAA does he say the FAA simply didn't care. I believe that is only you putting your own spin on it.


no, youre putting your own spin on his words. tell me, where does he specifically say "the faa planned and carried out 9/11?" because that is the spin you are trying to put on this.

they ignored the problem because they didnt want to shell out the billions of dollars needed to fix it. it's the exact same thing they are doing with controllers as we speak: dont hire enough controllers to fix the the shortage, but just enough to make it look like youre trying to do something….because it’s saving you money.



This again is putting your own spin on Dzakovik's statement. Nowhere does he say anything about the problem being because of budget concerns. Here is what he did say:

"The more serious the problems in aviation security we identified, the more FAA tied our hands behind our backs and restricted our activities. All we were doing in their eyes was identifying and "causing" problems that they preferred not to know about."


Did you read that? He specifically says the FAA preferred not to know about the security problems, and that the FAA restricted the Red Team's activities. He says nothing about their motive for doing this in his statement to the 9/11 Commission.


that's exactly right.....he said nothing about their motives. but again, you, who obviously have no knowledge of how the faa works, are attempting to imply that their motive was directly related to letting the terrorist attacks happen on 9/11......which is complete garbage. anyone who has worked inside the system over the last 30 years knows damn well that it is because they didnt want to pay to fix the problems, as that would cost billions to do correctly.



The 9/11 Commission's entire purpose was to determine what went wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen. The FAA is at the heart of everything that went wrong. To omit any reference to Dzakovic's statements in their final report is borderline criminal.


i agree that it's criminal to leave it out....and i'm merely pointing out that it wasnt the only testimony left out by a long shot. so why arent you attacking the 9/11 commission instead? Obviously they were complicite in covering something up by leaving all of that pertinent testimony out.



Interesting... so when did Bush first threaten to eliminate the FAA and contract out for the same services (or lack thereof) that the FAA provides?


from the very minute his administration took over. do some research. They want to contract out the entire air traffic system in much the same manner that Canada’s system is completely contract. Only we work about 75 percent more traffic than Canadian controllers.



Um.... not exactly. Actually, not even close.
I am not making a mistake at all. I'm just asking a question.


no youre not. you are intentionally making the accusation that the faa helped to plan and carry out the attacks on 9/11. at least be honest in your dishonesty in representing the facts.



Is it standard procedure for the FAA to evacuate the only control towers that could track a hijacked plane?


the left hand didnt know what the right hand was doing. period. again, go back to the boston thread that i referenced, and read up on air traffic and how it applies to 9/11 (which you obviously havent done). You’ve been a member here for all of a month, and instead of diving in to the literally hundreds of threads about 9/11, you have come in here with one source, and attempted to put your own very unknowledgeable spin on it ignoring all of the other facts already on this site. I’m not impressed.



The evacuations had ZERO to do with some parts of management knowing the 1st two planes were hijackings. These planes were in NY. The FAA new Flight 93 was also a hijacking, and already knew that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon when they ordered that ATC tower in Pittsburgh and Johnstown evacuated.


Wrong. You really haven’t read the 9/11 report have you? Or the actual transcripts from air traffic facilities that have been recently published (all of which you can find here), or you would realize that, as I have mentioned previously, nobody had the big picture. Everyone had little pieces of it, but nobody had all of the information. Different orders were coming from about ten different places.




Yes, and this happened at about 8:20 am? And then Flight 175 stopped responding. And then Flight 77. And then Flight 93 DID communicate to ATC in Cleveland about having a bomb on board. So to say that the FAA didn't know these were hijackings is incorrect.


Go read the transcripts from the day….maybe then you’ll understand the miscommunication. Cleveland had no idea that 93 was a hijack until well after they lost radar. In fact, they were still looking along it’s projected flight path because they though that it had gone down, when in fact they had turned off the transponder and turned around.




To be blunt, the FAA wrongly told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was .ing south towards Washington. This had nothing to do with appeasing the hijackers.


Because they didn’t know. period. Miscommunication. That is all.



I'm sorry, but the idea that the phantom Flight 11 story was caused only by confusion seems preposterous.


Mainly because you have no idea what you are talking about. you obviously are neither a controller nor a pilot, and are assuming things from this report that you have no right assuming without at least making an attempt to research it. You, once again, are basing everything off of one source, with absolutely no background knowledge of how anything in the air traffic system works. Go do some research.



The controllers have one job to do -track planes.


Oh man, does this one statement REALLY prove your ignorance. We do not simply “track planes.” We are responsible for the “safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic” throughout the united states. Do you know what the average training time is for a controller at an faa radar center? Two to three years. That’s not including time spent in Oklahoma city, college, and the military. The amount of information we have to learn is unreal. Again, you need to do a little research.



They already knew Flight 11 was hijacked and hit WTC1. In fact, they already knew Flight 175 hit WTC2. To suddenly come up with an unverified report to NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was .ing towards Washington because there was a report that Flight 77 was missing over Kentucky seems ludicrous.


It might “seem” that way to you, but again, many different reports coming from many different people greatly confused matters. You say the faa “knew this” and the faa “knew that”…..which is crap. One person knew flight 11 was down….another did not, and told norad that they thought it was .ing to dc. Miscommunication.



Are the controllers really THAT incompetent??


More display of your ignorance. It wasn’t controllers making those calls….it was management personell. Controllers were too busy separating all of the other traffic out there that we could see, and, when the orders came down, getting them all safely on the ground within 3 hours without one single accident.




Are the controllers really that poorly trained, and/or that incompetent? Didn't they realize what was at stake after two planes hit WTC1 and WTC2? Didn't they think it might be important to report Flight 77 to NEADS? Or to verify the "phantom" Flight 11?


The “controllers” had been sitting on position controlling the air traffic. Most of us had not even seen the news because we were too busy insuring that your wife and kids got from point a to point b safely. You quite obviously know nothing about transponders, or radar data tags, or primary targets. Otherwise you would know that once the terrorists turned off those transponders they for all intent and purpose became invisible. Blame the faa and the federal government in general for allowing the system to have enough holes in it to allow something like this to happen, but don’t you dare attempt to lay the blame on the men and women who, day in and day out, move some of the busiest air traffic in the world without incident or accident. Do you know why air travel is so safe in the country? Because of us.

Do so research and come back with data, not ignorant accusations based on something of which you know nothing.




[edit on 3/1/07 by snafu7700]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
The 9/11 Commission's entire purpose was to determine what went wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen. The FAA is at the heart of everything that went wrong.


I'm going to side with snafu on this one. There's a big big difference between "lazy negligence", which occurs in every office in the world every day, and actively persuing an outcome like 9/11.

But here's how I personally can be convinced of what you're saying:

I need your theoretical list of FAA employees who were in on it.

I know it may be hard to find names, so just titles will be fine. If there was a secret order sent in for the entire FAA to intentionally leave the door open for terrorists, it should be relatively easy to trace.

At the very least we need a detailed list of the specific FAA offices that were comprimised...the Boston office?....quarters in Virginia?

If any theory is going to be pushed then it needs to avoid the dreaded "THEY." You are implying, as best I can tell from this thread, that there were A MINIMUM of 10 employees spread over several offices were full on IN on 9/11.

Let's hear your theory with names and titles...who was riding dirty and who wasn't.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

no, youre putting your own spin on his words. tell me, where does he specifically say "the faa planned and carried out 9/11?" because that is the spin you are trying to put on this.


I never said the FAA planned and carried out 9/11.

That said, if there was any government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, then the FAA almost certainly had to be a part of it.

Further, the main point of the original post was that, according to Dzakovic, there was a conspiracy within the FAA to emasculate their own security procedures and the 9/11 Commission completely looked the other way. The 9/11 C didn't even address Dzakovic's testimony. I.e., the 9/11 Commission covered it up.




anyone who has worked inside the system over the last 30 years knows damn well that it is because they didnt want to pay to fix the problems, as that would cost billions to do correctly.


So basically you're saying that the FAA was systematically and criminally negligient by knowingly burying security problems that led to the deaths of thousands of people?

I have a friend who was in a car accident in which a passenger in the other car was killed, and he was sentenced to 6 months in jail even though the accident wasn't his fault. What sentence should the FAA receive for its willful and blatant failures on 9/11?



i agree that it's criminal to leave it out....and i'm merely pointing out that it wasnt the only testimony left out by a long shot. so why arent you attacking the 9/11 commission instead? Obviously they were complicite in covering something up by leaving all of that pertinent testimony out.


I am attacking the 9/11 Commission. They covered up the entire complicity that the FAA had in the attacks happening. In spite of Dzakovic's testimony of systemic and willful negligence, which led directly to 9/11, the 9/11 C didn't even mention his testimony.



from the very minute his administration took over. do some research. They want to contract out the entire air traffic system in much the same manner that Canada’s system is completely contract. Only we work about 75 percent more traffic than Canadian controllers.


Could the results have been any worse if the work was contracted out?






You’ve been a member here for all of a month, and instead of diving in to the literally hundreds of threads about 9/11, you have come in here with one source, and attempted to put your own very unknowledgeable spin on it ignoring all of the other facts already on this site. I’m not impressed.


I don't really care if you're impressed. And you still haven't been able to answer one very simple question, which is, in the entire history of the FAA, do you know of any other time besides 9/11 when an ATC towers was evacuated during a hijacking? Let alone three ATC towers that were the only towers that could have tracked Flight 93?

This has nothing to do with one hand not knowing what the other was doing. This has to do with simple common sense. You don't evacuate the ATC towers if you have a hijacked plane.





Wrong. You really haven’t read the 9/11 report have you? Or the actual transcripts from air traffic facilities that have been recently published (all of which you can find here), or you would realize that, as I have mentioned previously, nobody had the big picture. Everyone had little pieces of it, but nobody had all of the information. Different orders were coming from about ten different places.


Yes, I read the 9/11 C report. And no, I don't buy their explanation, which strikes me as a concerted attempt to cover up what really went wrong.




Go read the transcripts from the day….maybe then you’ll understand the miscommunication. Cleveland had no idea that 93 was a hijack until well after they lost radar. In fact, they were still looking along it’s projected flight path because they though that it had gone down, when in fact they had turned off the transponder and turned around.


Now you're getting yourself really confused. Cleveland knew Flight 93 was hijacked 30 minutes before it went down because the hijackers said something about having a bomb on board. Cleveland "lost track" of Flight 93 because the ATCs were ordered out of the tower.

You've mixed up the stories. It was Flight 77 that they claimed not to know was a hijacking because it went off radar. This in spite of the fact the there were already two hijackings that hit the WTCs.

Maybe you should actually brush up a little on the facts before you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about.




To be blunt, the FAA wrongly told NEADS that Flight 11 did NOT hit WTC1 and was .ing south towards Washington. This had nothing to do with appeasing the hijackers.

Because they didn’t know. period. Miscommunication. That is all.




This is a completely ridiculous explanation, imo. If the DIDN'T KNOW, then why did they pick up the phone to call NEADS and CONFIRM when NEADS asked "Are you sure?" And more to the point, they DID know. Flight 11 hit WTC1 at 8:46 am. Are you trying to tell me the FAA didn't know this?


So basically if I'm to believe your interpretation of the FAA's role in 9/11, there's little explanation other than the fact that the FAA is one of the most inept and criminally negligent government organizations that has ever existed.

* The FAA knew of HUGE security holes, and iordered the Red Team *not* to document their findings.

* The FAA, when confronted with Flight 93 being hijacked over Cleveland, nearly peed themselves, panicked, and told the controllers to run out of the towers in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Johsntown like scared school children instead of tracking the hijacked Flight 93. Is this what they teach you to do in air traffic controller school?

* The FAA somehow managed to prevent NORAD from knowing about two commericial airliners leisurely .ing towards Washington D.C. with the intent of attacking the seat of the U.S. government.

* Knowing WTC1 and WTC2 were already hit by hijackers, the FAA somehow managed to lose Flight 77 from rader for 30 minutes, and forgot to tell NORAD.

Seriously, couldn't somebody in the FAA be prosecuted for dereliction of duty just based on the fact that they ordered the ATC towers evacuated instead of tracking Flight 93?




top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join